It was a bad idea because Singer therefore muddled the exact sequel his film uses as a springboard for its own narrative purposes. The film suffered from cherry picking elements of Superman 2 and discarding others, leading to a lot of confusion over exactly which film it was a sequel to, Superman or Superman 2. Singer should've ditched his film's connection to Donner wholesale or he should've taken all the films into continuity.

Given that the film had a completely new cast it worked for me. I never saw it as a direct sequel to the Donner films, but more of a stand alone film that was essentially rebooting the franchise without a new origin tale.

It was a bad idea because Singer therefore muddled the exact sequel his film uses as a springboard for its own narrative purposes. The film suffered from cherry picking elements of Superman 2 and discarding others, leading to a lot of confusion over exactly which film it was a sequel to, Superman or Superman 2. Singer should've ditched his film's connection to Donner wholesale or he should've taken all the films into continuity.

That I understand (he should have been clearer about what elements should and should not be considered, although the best option would have been to consider everything). Still doesn't make the ignoring SIII and SIV a bad idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. Reme Lebeau

Given that the film had a completely new cast it worked for me. I never saw it as a direct sequel to the Donner films, but more of a stand alone film that was essentially rebooting the franchise without a new origin tale.

That was precisely the idea. but when you reboot franchises like Batman, for example, and you tell everyone this is a reboot with no connection with the previous movies whatsoever and people still say "Oh, so it's a prequel," then you have to be extra clear about it.

Given that the film had a completely new cast it worked for me. I never saw it as a direct sequel to the Donner films, but more of a stand alone film that was essentially rebooting the franchise without a new origin tale.

It was most definitely a loose sequel and not a full on reboot. It would be like if Batman Begins used Danny Elfman's score, images of Jack Nicholson's Joker, direct quotes from Batman '89 ect.

It's pretty safe to assume Singer meant for you to watch the 1978 Superman before watching Returns. Returns doesn't really stand on its own. Imagine showing it to someone who's never even heard of Superman before and they'd be confused.

It was most definitely a loose sequel and not a full on reboot. It would be like if Batman Begins used Danny Elfman's score, images of Jack Nicholson's Joker, direct quotes from Batman '89 ect.

More like Nolan would have followed B. Returns instead of making an origin movie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkKnight88

It's pretty safe to assume Singer meant for you to watch the 1978 Superman before watching Returns. Returns doesn't really stand on its own. Imagine showing it to someone who's never even heard of Superman before and they'd be confused.

This is true. You totally need to see STM and SII before SR, as this is a sequel to those. At least STM. And not everyone did before watching SR. But I cannot blame them.

It's understandable, especially due to Singer's open affinity for STM (and whatever he liked about II), that he decided to go with that "vague continuity" idea, essentially ignoring what are considered the lesser films (III + IV). However, for the average joe who might have seen the Reeve Superman films, but didn't have that "vague continuity" approach in mind, and just wanted to watch a new Superman film that summer, I think it effectively jumbled up things much to the detriment of the film itself.

I feel like Superman The Movie was a perfect comic book movie. Superman 3 and 4 each have good moments that make the movies worth watching for Superman fans but are not good movies. Superman 4 has probably 20 minutes that are really good. Superman 3 even less, but still.

I looked at SR as an alternate reality or alternate timeline to STM and SII. I think thats what Singer was trying to say without getting too Complicated. Where events similar to those films happened before SR but they also happened a bit differently. For one thing the main crystal at the fortress isn't green like in the Donner material.

I felt Birds of Prey did something similar with the Batman films being used as story inspiration even though there are differences in continuity. More differences than there are between STM/SII and SR.

Basicslly I like to see it as a film versions of a multiverse. But that's parts just fannon.

I think it was a mistake to ignore Superman 3 and 4 despite how poorly each movie was received. Including them wouldn't have detracted from the story Singer wanted to tell, perhaps could've provided more nods to be placed in SR (for fans of those films and I'm sure they are out there; I liked Superman 3 and didn't think Nuclear Man was that terrible an idea), and it would've cleared up confusion about where SR fits in the Donner-Singer continuity.

Personally I think that Singer should've just made SR a complete reboot, with some nice nods to the Donner films, Smallville, and other Superman lore. It made little sense to me to have a whole new cast and tie say they are the same characters from the 70s and 80s films. Routh did okay channeling Reeve but Bosworth didn't even try with Kidder. I thought Spacey took Hackman's reins very well, but I think he could've given an even better performance if he hadn't been shackled to the old films.

I think he did what he did because he's primarily a fan of the Donner films or at least parts of them but he also knew that to tell the kind of story he did it can be even better to have a Superman that the audience has a bit of familiarity with. It's the same reason that the Batman vs Superman script did things it did so that it could be a vague continuation of the previous film batman and to a lesser extent a previous Superman. It could have worked well with new versions of a batman and superman but it couldve worked even better with versions of the character whose history we had already invested in.

I didn't really mind want Singer did. I liked SR a lot but it had more fundamtal problems than just continuity as far as getting a bigger audience.

As far as the audience and the timeline and dates I always saw Singers reasoning as the film being on a sliding timescale like the comics or the Bond films. More so since its not even a direct sequel.

they did the same thing with x-men organs wolverine they skipped after that the made the wolverine . same thing with ghost rider they made it reboot instead of they acted like the first one didn't happen

Actually, if I remember correctly, Lana mentioned in the reunion to Clark, that it was the first time he'd been back to Smallville since his mom past away.

In III Lana said that meaning Martha died sometime between the period after STM and before III. In IV Clark is selling the farm. She's still alive during the later parts of STM because Kent wanted part of his salary sent to his mother.